seabird12":38lbqx6g said:
:Anyways I have no idea why you guys got rid of Bruce yall treated him like a role player. This guy notched 7 sacks,6 forced fumbles 72 tackles , 14 behind the line of scrimmage in 2016.
Was really simple. We had too many great players to pay. Irvin was a very good player. It happens all the time to teams loaded with talent. As a Raiders fan, I expect you'll find this out in a few years when your young stars on rookie deals get into their second contracts.
Hated him when we picked him (pined for Fletcher Cox that year). But quickly grew to love the player and became a household favorite here. He's one of the handful of players that I'd hope Seattle could manage to reunite with down the road. Was sorry to see him go. But completely understood the move and expected it well before we declined his 5th year option. Keeping Irvin would have required losing one of: Earl Thomas, Kam Chancellor, Richard Sherman, Bobby Wagner, KJ Wright, Cliff Avril or Michael Bennett. Irvin is not the equal of any of those players (at least as his role and our scheme is concerned).
I expect his production in a different scheme or role would be far better than it was destined to be here. Much like Golden Tate.
seabird12":38lbqx6g said:
Temper your expectations on luke joeckel I mean cable making him seem like a hall of famer he was good in college but so far in his career he is a bust.
https://youtu.be/lV1P_hDHDXo :0190l:
Nobody has unrealistic expectations for Joeckel. Cable is always a flowers and happiness kind of guy at this time of the year. This will be the third straight "Best OL we've ever assembled". The message now falls on deaf ears.
If Joeckel can be mediocre -- I think that is an upgrade for us. In a market (and draft class) where a shade above average is netting highest contracts ever, Joeckel is a relative bargain.